Identifying and Assessing the Critical Criteria for Material Selection in Storm Drainage Networks: A Stationary Analysis Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General Comments

This manuscript presents a study regarding the determining the stationary green materials selection criteria for storm drainage networks projects.

The paper is aligned with the journal's scope.

Although the paper is interesting, it has several flaws that the authors need to address before this manuscript will be acceptable for publication.

Please see the individual comments to each section below.

Detailed Comments

1) The title of the article - for me it is unclear; for me it is unclear; please try to modify it to emphasize the essence of the article (for example: identifying the stationary criteria for selecting ...)

2) Abstract: repeating of "the stationary criteria for selecting green materials for storm drainage networks" - please use different words

3) Line 23:  For this to happen, A - correct

4) The Abstract of this study doesn't seem to be well organized. In general, the Abstract should contain summarized information about the contents of the paper by research backgrounds, research objectives, methodology, results, and discussions. Therefore, the authors should clearly state the competitiveness of the paper in the Abstract. Moreover, additional content for each chapter would be recommended to highlight the creativity of the research.

5) Line 209: correct "[57]as"

6) 5.1. Major green materials selection criteria  - the text formatting does not match the text before

7)  Literature - position 12., 45, 56, 57, 59  - please correct

Author Response

Reviewer 1:

This manuscript presents a study regarding the determining the stationary green materials selection criteria for storm drainage networks projects. The paper is aligned with the journal's scope. Although the paper is interesting, it has several flaws that the authors need to address before this manuscript will be acceptable for publication. Please see the individual comments to each section below:

Answer: Thank you for your recommendation. We have updated the manuscript based on your comments. All of your comments have been considered in the revised manuscript. They surely helped us to improve the quality of the manuscript. Thank you for your time and effort. We hope that you find the revised version acceptable for publication.

 

Detailed Comments

• The title of the article - for me it is unclear; for me it is unclear; please try to modify it to emphasize the essence of the article (for example: identifying the stationary criteria for selecting ...)

Answer: Thank you for your recommendation. We have updated the title of the article based on your comments.

 

• Abstract: repeating of "the stationary criteria for selecting green materials for storm drainage networks" - please use different words

Answer: Thank you for your recommendation. We have updated the repeating of the sentence in the abstract based on your comments.

 

• Line 23: For this to happen, A – correct

Answer: Thank you for your recommendation. We have corrected the line 23 of the manuscript based on your comments.

 

• The Abstract of this study doesn't seem to be well organized. In general, the Abstract should contain summarized information about the contents of the paper by research backgrounds, research objectives, methodology, results, and discussions. Therefore, the authors should clearly state the competitiveness of the paper in the Abstract. Moreover, additional content for each chapter would be recommended to highlight the creativity of the research.

Answer: Thank you for your recommendation. We have revised the abstract of the manuscript based on your comments.

 

• Line 209: correct "[57]as"

Answer: We corrected it in the revised manuscript.

 

• 1. Major green materials selection criteria - the text formatting does not match the text before

Answer: We corrected it in the revised manuscript.

 

• Literature - position 12., 45, 56, 57, 59 - please correct

Answer: All references were checked in the revised manuscript.

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

            The survey to identify reliable green materials for network drainage systems is interesting and the huge collection of data in this regard certainly offers useful information. However, some minor clarifications as listed may be provided for more understanding about the relationship between the green materials and surveyed parameters.

 

Major comments

(1) The data are merely presented without providing any information on the nature of the green materials. This aspect may be carefully addressed.

(2) The cost of the estimated projects together with the deduction according to the proposals (survey output) should also be included to understand the merit of the survey.

(3) Opinion: What actually ‘green materials’ corresponds to? It may be briefed at the initial stage only so that newly joined researchers can understand in a better way. 

 

Minor comments

 

Abstract

(1) Lines 18-23: The sentences appear to be quite repetitive. It may be modified for readability.

(2) The best parameters chosen for the survey may be briefly emphasized.

 

 

Introduction

(1) Is it possible to amend some information on the chemical compositions of green materials that are widely used in UDS?

 

Sustainability Criteria

(1) Up to the author’s choice: Table 1- Another column ‘Remarks’ may be included and significant findings of the cited papers may be highlighted.

 

Author Response

Dear authors,

The survey to identify reliable green materials for network drainage systems is interesting and the huge collection of data in this regard certainly offers useful information. However, some minor clarifications as listed may be provided for more understanding about the relationship between the green materials and surveyed parameters.

Answer: Thank you for your recommendation. We have updated the manuscript based on your comments. All of your comments have been considered in the revised manuscript. They surely helped us to improve the quality of the manuscript. Thank you for your time and effort. We hope that you find the revised version acceptable for publication.

 

Major comments

• The data are merely presented without providing any information on the nature of the green materials. This aspect may be carefully addressed.

Answer:

Many thanks for the reviewer valuable comment. We agree with the reviewer and we have added the new section explains the nature of the green materials. Kindly refer to section 2.1 Nature of the green materials.

• The cost of the estimated projects together with the deduction according to the proposals (survey output) should also be included to understand the merit of the survey.

Answer:

Thanks for your comment. The cost of the estimated projects and the related deductions fall out of the scope of this study; however, to fully address your valuable comment, this point has been mentioned as one of the main limitations of the study.

• Opinion: What actually ‘green materials’ corresponds to? It may be briefed at the initial stage only so that newly joined researchers can understand in a better way.

Answer: Thank you for your recommendation. Based on your comments, we have added the brief about green materials in the manuscript.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Minor comments

• Lines 18-23: The sentences appear to be quite repetitive. It may be modified for readability.

Answer: Thank you for your recommendation. We have updated the repeating of the sentence in the abstract based on your comments.

 

• The best parameters chosen for the survey may be briefly emphasized.
• Is it possible to amend some information on the chemical compositions of green materials that are widely used in UDS?
• Up to the author’s choice: Table 1- Another column ‘Remarks’ may be included and significant findings of the cited papers may be highlighted.

Answer:

Many thanks for the author valuable comment. We agree with the reviewer, however, this paper is a part of huge project to adopt green material selection for storm projects and further paper will be considered in detail the significant findings of the cited papers. In addition, best parameters chosen for the survey will be briefly emphasized on the future papers.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

  In this manuscript, the author surveyed the society about 29 selection criteria of green construct material application in the storm drainage network. This survey is important for the officers, constructors, and suppliers related to the storm drainage network building. However, compared to a research article, this manuscript is somewhat more like a survey report for the government, especially the manuscript structure, which is quite far from a standard research article, in my opinion. Thus, considering the importance of this manuscript for the green material application in city construction, it is suggested to be reconsidered after major revision. 

 

  There are some suggestions about the manuscript.

1. The background of the participants is not shown in this survey, which should be important as the green material choosing is quite a business of officers, constructors, and suppliers that relate to the city construction. So, if this survey is only based on the replies from citizens who are not related to the storm drainage network building, although they may familiar with the green material, the value and influence of the data are low. 

2. It is suggested that the structure of the manuscript should follow the requirement of a research article, which will make the manuscript more readable.

3. The introduction and section 2 are too long, while the data about the green material application situation was not given (for example, the type of the green materials used, its cost and related properties, advances and disadvances, etc.). Meanwhile, it is also suggested that the author should compare the properties of some green materials that are under application to the conclusion of the survey.

4. It is also suggested that the author can classify the participants into some groups based on their backgrounds to see the conflict between different groups in the choice of green materials. 

Author Response

In this manuscript, the author surveyed the society about 29 selection criteria of green construct material application in the storm drainage network. This survey is important for the officers, constructors, and suppliers related to the storm drainage network building. However, compared to a research article, this manuscript is somewhat more like a survey report for the government, especially the manuscript structure, which is quite far from a standard research article, in my opinion. Thus, considering the importance of this manuscript for the green material application in city construction, it is suggested to be reconsidered after major revision.

Answer: Thank you for your recommendation. We have updated the manuscript based on your comments. All of your comments have been considered in the revised manuscript. They surely helped us to improve the quality of the manuscript. Thank you for your time and effort. We hope that you find the revised version acceptable for publication.

 

There are some suggestions about the manuscript.

• The background of the participants is not shown in this survey, which should be important as the green material choosing is quite a business of officers, constructors, and suppliers that relate to the city construction. So, if this survey is only based on the replies from citizens who are not related to the storm drainage network building, although they may familiar with the green material, the value and influence of the data are low.

 

Answer: Many thanks for the reviewer valuable comments. The data has been collected from professional storm drainage projects, however, they familiar   with storm and sustainability aspects. We have been added the section for the demographic information based on the reviewer comment.

 

 

• It is suggested that the structure of the manuscript should follow the requirement of a research article, which will make the manuscript more readable.

Answer:

Many thanks for the reviewer valuable comment. The paper has been enhanced accordingly.

• The introduction and section 2 are too long, while the data about the green material application situation was not given (for example, the type of the green materials used, its cost and related properties, advances and disadvances, etc.). Meanwhile, it is also suggested that the author should compare the properties of some green materials that are under application to the conclusion of the survey.

Answer:

The scope of this study is to identify the criteria used for material selection storm drainage networks, and accordingly determine the stationary ones having the highest impact. In this vein, since the considered criteria are of qualitative nature, for many of them, if not all, the quantitative amount cannot be obtained; thus, this study for achieving the specified objectives use questionnaire surveys, so as to quantify the importance of them in a systematic way. In addition to that, knowing the quantitative data related to the materials without having them applied to real-life case studies cannot be realized. Moreover, the quantity of materials used in different projects vary from case to case. Due to all the mentioned reasons, the best way for quantifying the importance of the materials used for material selections in the concerned projects is collection of data through solicitation of experts’ knowledge, who have been involved in several related projects.  

 

• It is also suggested that the author can classify the participants into some groups based on their backgrounds to see the conflict between different groups in the choice of green materials.

Answer:

Many thanks for the author valuable comment. We agree with the reviewer, however, this paper is a part of huge project to adopt green material selection for storm projects and further paper will be considered in detail the significant findings of the cited papers. We have been added the section for the demographic information based on the reviewer comment.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript has been improved and is suggested can be accepted.